Archives for August 2009

[If a person] circumsizes [a baby boy2 for someone else] (i.e. not his own son) he needs to say a Beracha (blessing) for himself (i.e. for his act of circumcision) [even though it is the father who is obligated to circumsize hiw own son].3 He says [the following Beracha:] Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav Vetzivanu Al Hamilah.4 The father of the boy has to say a Beracha for himself [regardless if he is or is not the one who performed5 the circumcision].6 He says [the following Beracha:] Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav Vetzivanu Lehachniso Bivrito Shel Avraham Avinu.7 And the people who stand there [in the presence of the circumcision] say [in response to the father’s Beracha:] Keshem Shehichnisato Lebrit Kach Tachnisehu Letorah Ulechupah Ulemaasim Tovim.8 [The person] who says the Beracha [over the ceremony of the circumcision]9 says [the following Beracha: Baruch Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Asher Kidash Yedid Mibeten, Vechok Besheiro Sam, Vetzeetzaav Chatam Beot Berit Kodesh. Al Ken Bischar Zot, El Chai Chelkeinu Tzureinu Tziva Lehatzil Yedidot Sheereinu Mishachat. Baruch [Ata Hashem] Koret Haberit.10

The Tosefta continues on the same subject from the previous Tosefta. It is not related to any Mishna. This Tosefta outlines all Berachot that are said at the ceremony of the circumcision.

The Torah commands to circumsize the penis of all male children on the eighth day after their birth. See Bereishit 17:9-14 and Vayikra 12:3.

See note 3 on the previous Tosefta. I have explained this Tosefta according to the explanation of Chazon Yechezkel (Berachot, Tosefta 6:17, Chidushim, Hamal) that I mentioned above as well. His explanation is based on the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:1) that the Beracha in the form of Al Hamilah (regarding the circumcision) is said only if someone else, not the father, is circumsizing the baby. However if the father circumsizes his own son then he says the Beracha in the form of Lamol Et Haben (to circumsize the son), since the real obligation of circumcision of the son falls out on the father and not on anyone else. See Talmud Bavli (Kiddushin 29a) and Talmud Yerushalmi (Kiddushin 1:7, Daf 19a) for different sources in the Torah of the father’s specific obligation to circumsize his own son. As I already explained above (note 3 on the previous Tosefta) the word Leatzmo (for himself) is referring to the Beracha that is being said and not to the Mitzva (commandment) that is being done.

ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us regarding the circumcision.

I have explained the Tosefta according tio the opinion of Rabeinu Tam in the Tosafot (Shabbat 137b, Avi Haben) that first the circumcision is performed and only after that the father says this second Beracha. However other Rishonim (Medieval authorities) hold that this Beracha should also be said before the performance of the circumcision, since all Berachot over Mitzvot are said before the performance of the Mitzvah, as was explained above in Tosefta 14, note 3. For a discussion of various opinions regarding when the father should say the second Beracha see Hagahot Maimoni on the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:1).

Since it is the father who is obligated to circumcise his son he must say a Beracha even if he is not the Mohel (circumsizer). However, even if the father is the Mohel and he says the first Beracha (Al Hamilah) he still has to say this second Beracha. It seems to me that the reason that the father has to say this Beracha even if he already said the first Beracha is because the Rabbis did not want to differentiate between different cases and coined the same Berachot to be said all the time. This is known in Talmudic literature as a Lo Plug (non-differentiation between cases). Since in most cases the father is not the Mohel since most people do not know how to circumcise the Rabbis have instituted this second Beracha for the father, since he is more obligated in the circumcision of his own son than anyone else, however for the odd case when the father does circumsize his own son the Rabbis have applied the rule of Lo Plug and required him to say both Berachot. For the discussion on this matter see Hagahot Maimoni on the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:1).

ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Avraham our father. Since the Rabbis have intended to coin this Beracha for the father who did not perform the circumcision, but rather has paid someone else to do it for him, they referred in the Beracha to the father’s action, namely not the circumcision itself since the father did not do it, but rather to the fact that the father has brought the child into the convenant that God has made with Avraham, by arranging for the child to be circumcised. For the story of God’s covenant of circumcision with Avraham see Bereishit 17.

כשם שהכניסתו לברית כן תכניסהו לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים – Just like you have brought him to the circumcision so too may you bring him to the Torah, to the Chupah (Wedding Canopy) and to [performing] good deeds. The reason that these specific items are mentioned in the people’s response is explained by Rabeinu Manoach (quoted by Bet Yosef on Tur Yoreh Deah 265, Veim Hayu Acherim) that these are the things in which the father is obligated to his son. For the complete list of the father’s obligations to his son see Tosefta Kiddushin 1:8. Among these things the father is obligated to teach his son Torah and to marry him off to a woman. Obviously the father cannot control and therefore is not obligated in his son’s performance of good deeds, but this has been added to this phrase to give it a bigger feeling of a blessing. It should be noted that in the Erfurt manuscript of the Tosefta the words “Maasim Tovim” – “good deeds” are not mentioned, which makes more sense in terms of Rabeinu Manoach’s explanation. However I have decided to keep them in based on the Vienna manuscript since they are mentioned in the quote of the Tosefta in Talmud Bavli (Kiddushin 29a). It is possible to explain that “good deeds” refers to the performance of the Mitzvot which the father is supposed to teach his son, since he is obligatred in teaching him Torah, so it kind of goes along with the mentioning of the Torah.

Since the Tosefta does not specify who this person is the Rambam (Hilchot Milah 3:3) explains that it can be anyone who is present, including the father, the Mohel or anyone else who is present at the circumcision. It is not completely clear what the purpose of this Beracha is. It seems to be a Beracha that was established to give more importance to the procedure of the circumcision and to create a ritual around it, similar to the seven Berachot that are said at a wedding. See Talmud Bavli (Ketubot 7b).

ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדש ידיד מבטן, וחק בשארו שם, וצאצאיו חתם באות ברית קודש. על כן בשכר זאת, אל חי חלקינו צורינו צוה להציל ידידות שארנו משחת. ברוך אתה ה’ כורת הברית. – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified the beloved one from the womb, and placed the mark of the law on his descendant, and sealed his offspring with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this, The Living God, Our Portion, Our Rock, command to save the beloved people of our remnant from destruction. Blessed You Hashem, Who establishes the convenant.

There are a few different ways to explain the text of this Beracha which in turn significantly impact its translation. I have chosen to translate the first part of the Beracha according to the explanation of Tosafot (Shabbat 137b, Yedid Mibeten) and the second part of the Beracha according to my own interpretation which follows along Tosafot’s logic. According to my translation all obscure terms in the language of the Beracha refer to various people. “The beloved one” is a reference to Avraham our father, “his descendant” is a reference to his son, Yitzchak, and “his offspring” is a reference to Yitzchak’s son, Yakov. See Tosafot (ibid.) for an explanation of why these particular references are used to refer to our forefathers. “The beloved people of our remnant” is a reference to the Jewish people who remained living in the Land of Israel after the destruction of the second Bet Hamikdash. They were persecuted by the Romans who among other commandments forbade the Jews to perform circumcision, in particular during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 CE). See above Tosefta Berachot 2:13, note 7. It appears that despite Roman decrees Jews kept performing circumcision anyway. See Tamud Bavli (Yevamot 72a) where it mentions that many Jews performed circumcision during the rebellion of Bar Kochba, even though it was forbidden by the Romans. Based on this it is my humble opinion that this Beracha was written by the Rabbis some time around the time of the decrees of Hadrian and was said as a plea to God to save the Jews of the Land of Israel from the evil decrees of the Romans that particularly targeted the commandment of circumcision. For a completely different interpretation of this Beracha see Rashi (Shabbat 137b) who interprets various words in the Beracha to refer to completely different concepts. Obviously based on Rashi’s explanation there is no evidence when this Beracha was composed.

It should be noted that in the Erfurt manuscript the ending of the Beracha is slightly different than what I have quoted above, which is based on the Vienna manuscript. Instead of the word “משחת” – “from desctruction” it says, “למען בריתו אשר שם בבשרנו” – “for the sake of His convenant that He has placed on our flesh”. This text fits even better with my interpretation of this Beracha since it directly refers to the fact that God should save the remaining Jews as a reward for them performing the commandment of circumcision despite the evil decrees that forbid it. It seems to me that the reason why suddenly the text switches its reference to God in the third person is precisely because it is not referring what God is doing now, but rather to what God has commanded in the Torah a long time ago which the Jews keep now despite their hardships.

R’ Naftali Hertz Ben Yakov Elchanan, a student of the Ari, quotes in the introduction to his kabbalistic sefer Emek Hamelech (Amsterdam, 1648) a whole Masechta of what he calls “Mishnayot” that discuss various holy vessels (Keilim) from the Bet Hamikdash that were hidden at the time of the destruction of the first Bet Hamikdash. The quote appears in chapter 11 of the introduction to the sefer. It begins on page 14a and ends on page 14b. There are 12 paragraphs in this chapter, each of which is called a Mishna. From the style of the text it is really hard to say when it was compiled but it is written in a much longer form than the Mishna or the Tosefta that we recognize. The same text of the so-called Masechat Keilim is quoted in Eisenstein’s Otzar Midrashim Vol. 1 on page 260, although from a different source.

For centuries this chapter of Beraitot in Emek Hamelech was completely ignored, except apparently for Napoleon’s army who tried to look for it in 1799 during their campaign in Palestine. See this article. All of that has changed after the discovery of the Cairo Geniza. Apparently a fragment dated to the 10th century was found in the Cairo Geniza that contains this chapter of Beraitot. According to Vendel Jones, a prominent archaelogist who directed archaeological searches for Biblical artifacts such as the Ark of the Covenant, the fragment was mentioned to him by Prof. William Bowen, the finder of the Genizah. See page 11 of Jones’ Spring 2009 newsletter where he writes that. I have not been able to find online a copy of this fragment. This piece of literature became really interesting when various scrolls that it mentions were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the famous Copper Scroll.

Why am I writing about this on the Tosefta Blog? The reason is , because I have seen on various websites claims that this fragment is a lost section of the Tosefta from Masechta Keilim, although none of them have a reliable source to quote, which is why I am not linking them here. Obviously any part of this chapter of Beraitot does not appear in any printed editions and the 3 extant manuscripts of the Tosefta. Bar-Ilan University Tosefta project does not list this fragment among its list of fragments of the Tosefta from the Cairo Geniza. Besides, as I already have mentioned, the style of writing of this piece is simply way too long for the Tosefta, in my humble opinion.

Of course, I could be wrong, but until more light is shed on this I am leaning to say that this fragment has nothing to do with the Tosefta what so ever. For now it is just a stand-alone piece of Jewish literature.

For more information about this strange text so-called “Masechta Keilim” see the article in French: J.T.Milik, “Notes d’epigraphie et de topographie Palestiniennes,” Revue Biblique. 67(1960), p. 580 (No. 71) [Revue Biblique 66 (1959): p.550-75]. I found a reference from it on this blog:

One of the two textual sources for the Treatise of the Vessels is inscribed on two marble plaques that seem to have been made in Beirut. (The other source is Jellinek’s Bet ha-Midrasch, II, xxvi-xxvii and 88-91.) J. T. Milik in his article “Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes,” RB 66 (1959): 550-75 writes the following:

A doublet of this “Treatise of the Holy Vessels” is read on the “plaques of Beirut.” It was his Reverence Jean Starkey who recounted to me the story. A good number of years ago someone showed him in a house in Beirut several plaques of marble engraved with letters in relief. It seems that they were intended for a synagogue of Syria or Lebanon. They contained the entire text of Ezekiel, but on the last two plaques were found inscribed the story of a treasure of Mount Carmel and the descriptions of other sacred caches. Mr. Starkey photographed the next-to-last plaque (pl. XIV) and copied some lines from the last. He has kindly passed these materials to me and I have succeeded in identifying a large part of the text of these two plaques with the above-mentioned Treatise of the Vessels.

Milik then published Starkey’s photograph and transcription of the plaques.

We are also not aware of Solomon Schechter ever having seen or published any such fragment.

I see from your Tosefta blog that you quote Vendyl Jones who claims that a William Bowen at Cambridge University mentioned the fragment to him. But further searches on the internet show that this Bowen was Jones’ teacher at the so-called ‘Bowen Biblical Museum’ in the United States. Further researches show that the only museum under that name is one housed in the Bob Jones University in Carolina and the ‘museum’ in question is connected to a Mr and Mrs Frank Bowen. So, I really don’t know how reliable a source Mr Vendyl Jones is.

We certainly do not know of any William Bowen connected to Cambridge or the Genizah, but if you can enlighten us that would be great.

That just shows you how careful you have to be about all of these quotes in different sources. So far it seems that such fragment may not exist. I am still waiting for a reply from the Reyland collection.

[Even if a person] slaughters2 [an animal] for himself he needs to say a Beracha (blessing) [in the form as if it was slaughtered for others].3 He says [the following Beracha:] Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav Vetzivanu Al Hashechitah.4 [Even if a person] covers blood [after slaughtering a wild animal or a bird]5 for himself he needs to say a Beracha [in the form as if the blood was covered for others]. He says [the following Beracha:] Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav Vetzivanu Al Kisui Hadam Beafar.6

The Tosefta continues on the same subject from the previous Tosefta. It is not related to any Mishna.

Slaughtering an animal either for food or for a sacrifice according to the rules of ritual slaughter – Shechita, is a commandement in the Torah. See Devarim 12:21. The Torah does not obligate anyone to eat meat for food except in the cases of certain sacrifices, however if a person wants to eat meat then the Torah obligates him to slaughter the animal according to the rules of Shechitah. The Torah itself did not specify what the rules of Shechitah are, besides saying that the animal should be slaughtered according to the rules. Therefore the rules of Shechitah have been passed on in the Oral Tradition (Massorah) and are recorded in the Mishna in chapters 1 and 2 of Masechta (tractate) Chulin. Since the Torah does say that the animal must be slaughtered according to its rules the process of slaughtering is considered to be a direct commandment from God and therefore requires a Beracha.

The wording of the Tosefta “leatzmo” meaning “for himself” is very unclear. If the Tosefta means that he slaughtered the animal for himself it should have placed the word “leatzmo” directly after the word “hashochet”. In the way that the Tosefta places this word it implies that he should say the Beracha for himself, but that does not make any sense, since obviously if he is doing the slaughter then he is saying the Beracha for himself and not for someone else. See Higayon Aryeh on this Tosefta. It should be noted that this Beraita is quoted in Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 9:3, Daf 66a) without the word “leatzmo” meaning that regardless if he is slaughtering the animal for himself or for someone else he still would say this Beracha. However from the Tosefta it is implied that only if he slaughters the animal for himself he would say the Beracha, but not if he would slaughter the animal for someone else. This is very difficult to understand since the Beracha is made on the performance of the commandment and it should not matter who is going to eat the animal in the end, the butcher or another person. Due to this problem there exists another explanation regarding the meaning of the word “leatzmo”. This explanation is taken up by Chazon Yechezkel (Berachot, Tosefta 6:17, Chidushim, Hamal). He says that the word “leatzmo” is not referring to the Mitzva (commandment) which is being done, but rather to the type of a Beracha that shold be said on it. He quotes the Rambam (Hilchot Berachot 11:11-15) who says that the wording of the Beracha changes depending if the person is performing the Mitzvah for himself or for someone else. If the person is performing the Mitzvah for himself then the wording of the Beracha should be “Laasot …” – “to do …” followed by the type of the Mitzvah. But if the person is performing the Mitzvah for someone else then the wording of the Beracha should be “Al …” – “regarding …” followed by the type of the Mitzvah. The Rambam clarifes (Hilchot Berachot 11:15) that Shechita and covering of the blood after slaughter are exceptions to this rule. The reason that they are exceptions is because they are not obligatory commandments. The person is not obligated in eating meat and is therefore is not obligated in slaughtering the animal or covering its blood after slaughter. Therefore the Rambam explains, since Shechita is not obligatory even if the person slaughters the animal only for himself he still says the Beracha in the form of “Al …” – “regarding …”. Based on the Rambam’s position, Chazon Yechezkel explains that this is the precise reason why the Tosefta says the word “leatzmo” – “for himself” after the word “Beracha” and not after the word “Hashochet”. It is referring to the form of the Beracha, that even if a person slaughtered the animal for himself he still says the Beracha using the form “Al …” and not using the form “Laasot …”. Since Chazon Yechzekel’s explanation fits better into the precise wording of the Tosefta, I have chosen to translate it according to his explanation and not according to the explanation of Higayon Aryeh. In addition, according to Chazon Yechezkel’s explanation, the Tosefta agrees with Talmud Yerushalmi that the Beracha has to be said regardless if he is slaughtering for himself or for others, and the Tosefta is not even discussing that particular law. Rather the Tosefta is emphasizing the form in which the Beracha has to be said if the person is slaughtering for himself.

ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על השחיטה – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us regarding the slaughter.

The Torah commands that if a person slaughters a wild animal such as a deer or a bird then after the slaughter he should cover the spilled blood with some dirt. See Vayikra 17:13-14. Blood of domesticated animals such as cows, sheep or goats does not need to be covered after slaughter. As was already explained above in note 3, the commandment of covering the blood after slaughter is not considered to be obligatory since the person is not obligated to eat meat. Because of that the Beracha for this Mitzvah is said in the form of “Al …” – “regarding …” and not in the form of “Laasot …” – “to do …”.

ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על כיסוי הדם בעפר – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us regarding covering of the blood with dirt. It should be noted that the word “Beafar” – “with dirt” only appears in the Vienna manuscript, but not in the Erfurt manuscript of the Tosefta. It is not really clear which version is more correct, since on one hand the Torah does explicitly say that the blood must be covered with dirt, but on the other hand even other materials besides dirt, such as sand, plaster or manure are all fitting to be used to cover the blood since in Halacha (Jewish Law) they are all considered to be similar enough to dirt for this purpose. See Mishna Chulin 6:7.

[If a person] makes a Lulav (date palm branch)2 for himself he says [the following Beracha (blessing) after completing it]: Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Shehigiyanu Lazman Hazeh.3 When he takes it (i.e. the Lulav) [on the holiday of Sukkot] he says [the following Beracha]: Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav Vetzivanu Al Netilat Lulav.4 And he must say this Beracha [before taking] it all seven days [of Sukkot].5 [If a person] makes [a garment] with Tzitzit (fringes)6 [on it] for himself he says [the following Beracha after completing it]: Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Shehigiyanu Lazman Hazeh. When he wraps7 himself in it he says [the following Beracha]: Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav Vetzivanu Lehitatef Batzitzit.8 And he must say this Beracha [before he puts on the garment with Tzitzit] every day.9 [If a person] makes Tefillin (phylacteries)10 for himself he says [the following Beracha after completing it]: Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Shehigiyanu Lazman Hazeh. When he puts it on he says [the following Beracha]: Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Asher Kideshanu Bemitzvotav Vetzivanu Lehaniach Tefilin.11 When does he put them (i.e. Tefilin) on? In the morning. [If] he did not put them on in the morning he [can] put them on the whole day.12

The Tosefta continues on the same subject from the previous Tosefta. It is not related to any Mishna.

The Torah commands each person on the holiday of Sukkot to take the four species. See Vayikra 23:40. They are: an Etrog (a citron), a Lulav (a branch of a date palm), Hadasim (myrtle branches), and Aravot (willow branches). These 4 species are tied into a bundle and picked up on Sukkot. The Tosefta singles out the Lulav specifically because it is the biggest of the four species; however it is referring to the whole bundle together, since the Lulav by itself cannot be taken. It must be taken together with the whole bundle as the Torah commands.

See note 5 on the previous Tosefta. According to the Tosefta the Beracha of Shehechiyanu is said after preparing any item for the performance of a Mitzva.

ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על נטילת לולב – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to take the Lulav. As with all Berachot said on the performance of Mitzvot, the Beracha is said right before the person performs the Mitzva and not after it, as was explained in note 3 on the previous Tosefta.

The Torah explicitly says that the four species bundle has to be taken only on the first day of Sukkot and not all seven days. See Vayikra 23:40. However Talmud Bavli (Sukkah 45b-46a) explains that during the times of the Bet Hamikdash the Lulav was taken in the Bet Hamikdash itself all seven days. After the destruction of the Bet Hamikdash the Rabis decreed that all people everywhere should take the four species all seven days as well as a commemoration of the Bet Hamikdash. Therefore on the first day of Sukkot it is a Torah obligation to take the four species, where as on all consequent days of Sukkot it is a Rabbinical commandment. As was mentioned in note 2 on the previous Tosefta, even Rabbinical commandments require a Beracha. This poses a problem with the wording of the Beracha since in the Beracha we say the word “Vetzivanu” meaning that it is God who commanded us to perform this Mitzva, how can it be said on a Rabbinical commandement since it was not God who commanded us to perform it in the Torah, but rather the Rabbis. This issue is resolved by the Talmud Bavli (Shabbat 23a) by explaining that since God in the Torah has explicitly commanded us to listen to the Rabbis (see Devarim 17:11) it is therefore as if each Rabbinical commandment has been commanded by God directly and therefore the wording of the Beracha remains valid even when said on Rabbinical commandements.

The Torah commands to put Tzitzit (fringes) on all four cornered garments. See Bemidbar 15:37-41. There is no obligation to specifically wear a four cornered garment in order to put Tzitzit on it, but rather if a person wants to wear a four cornered garment then he has to put Tzitzit on it. In ancient times four cornered garments were very common and mainly served as cloaks. Today such garments are still generally worn in Central and South America and are called ponchos or chamantos. If a Jew would want to wear a poncho he would have to put Tzitzit on it. Jews today wear special garments not for the purpose of clothing themselves but rather to specifically fulfil the Mitzva of Tzitzit. Such a garment is called a Tallit. A large Tallit is usually worn during morning prayers which a person wears over his shoulders on the outside of his clothing, where as a small Tallit is worn all day as an undergarment. I have seen religious Jews wearing the small Tallit with Tzitzit and at the same time wearing a poncho on the outside of their clothes without Tzitzit on it, because that is the way they bought it in the store. This is a clear violaton of the Torah commandment, but I guess they do not realize that they have to put Tzitzit on every four cornered garment that they wear including the poncho.

President George Bush Jr. of the United States and President Vladimir Putin of Russia

wearing traditional Peruvian ponchos at the APEC summit in Lima, Peru, in November 2008 Chilean Chamantos at the APEC summit in Santiago, Chile on November 20-21, 2004.

Since most ancient four cornered garments were cloaks the person put it on by wrapping himself in it.

ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להתעטף בציצית – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to wrap in Tzitzit.

The Mitzvah of Tzitzit applies only during the day and not at night. The reason is because the Torah says (see Bemidbar 15:39) that the Tztzit have to have a blue string that a person must be able to see. Since at night it is dark and people cannot see without artificial lighting the Mitzvah of Tzitzit does not apply. As was explained above in note 7 on the previous Tosefta, if a Mitzva is not continuous, meaning that there is a period when a person is obligated in it (i.e. day) and a period of exemption (i.e. night) then every time the person performs the Mitzva again he has to say a new Beracha on it.

The Torah commands in four different places to tie the words that contain specific verses in the Torah to a person’s arm and between the person’s eyes, meaning on top of his head in between his eyes. See Shemot 13:9, Shemot 13:16, Devarim 6:8, and Devarim 11:18. The Torah does not describe what Tefillin should look like exactly. By oral tradition we know that Tefillin is black leather boxes with leather straps on them that contain inside them the parchments with the paragraphs from the Torah that contain the verses that mention Tefillin. It should be noted that this tradition of what exactly should be written inside the Tefillin was not always universal. During the excavations at Qumran, in Israel, together with the Dead Sea Scrolls there has been found Tefillin which looked almost exactly the same as our Tefillin, but besides the regular paragraphs it also contained the text of the Ten Commandments and other verses. For a detailed discussion of the Tefillin discoveries and what Tefillin may have looked like in ancient times see Yehudah Cohn, Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World, Brown Judaic Studies 351, Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.

ברוך אתה ה’ אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להניח תפלין – Blessed You Hashem, our God, King of the world, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to put on Tefillin. It is clear from the Tosefta that the custom in Talmudic times in the Land of Israel was to say only one Beracha when putting on Tefillin, which covers both the Tefillin on the arm and the Tefillin on the head and not two Berachot as is the Ashkenazi custom today. For a discussion on this matter see Talmud Bavli (Menachot 36a and Berachot 60b) and Tosafot (Berachot 60b, Asher).

The Mitzvah of Tefilin really applies the whole day, but not at night. See Talmud Bavli (Menachot 36b). However since the person might forget to put on Tefilin the Rabbis recommended to put it on the first thing in the morning. However if the person was unable to do so or forgot he could do it the whole day. The Tosefta seems to imply that most people in its times wore Tefilin only for a short period of time each day and not the whole day and therefore a person might forget to put on Tefillin all together, because if Tefillin was worn all day long then the Tosefta would not need to specify when it should be put on, since it would be worn all day long. Therefore the Rabbis recommended putting it on as early as possible. For a discussion of various sources regarding when Tefillin was worn in Talmudic times see Yehudah Cohn, Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World, Brown Judaic Studies 351, Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, p. 132-133.